Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

Russia,the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia set up Normandy format to meet on October 23 to discuss cease fire and freezing the conflict in Syria.

LAVROV, KERRY AGREE TO ARRANGE MIDDLE EAST QUARTET MINISTERIAL MEETING IN VIENNA ON OCT 23 - RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY

16:03

LAVROV, KERRY DISCUSS SITUATION IN SYRIA, AGREE TO MEET IN VIENNA ON OCT 23, WITH SAUDI ARABIA'S, TURKEY'S PARTICIPATION - RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY

‪#‎Syria24‬

S.M.

ultron wrote:Russia,the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia set up Normandy format to meet on October 23 to discuss cease fire and freezing the conflict in Syria.

LAVROV, KERRY AGREE TO ARRANGE MIDDLE EAST QUARTET MINISTERIAL MEETING IN VIENNA ON OCT 23 - RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY

16:03

LAVROV, KERRY DISCUSS SITUATION IN SYRIA, AGREE TO MEET IN VIENNA ON OCT 23, WITH SAUDI ARABIA'S, TURKEY'S PARTICIPATION - RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY

‪#‎Syria24‬

S.M.

With russias actions in Syria, the failed strategy in ukraine to drag russia in a war you can bet whatever amount of money you want that USA will create another front for russia be it in Kazakhstan, Belarus or simply retardation of more eastern european slavic nations that are used as cannon fodder.

JohninMK wrote:

Militarov wrote:

More paved area near SU30s for auxiliary vehicles.

Nothing like the smell of fresh asphalt under the mess tent whilst you relaxing awaiting a QRA call.

Meanwhile my field mess was mostly in some God forgotten field in mid of the forest.

There are reports that some new MANPADs (apparently Stingers) entered Syria and are now in rebel hands.

If they're true, SyAF must be very careful - we can't let their already battered AF to suffer even heavier casualties.

PapaDragon wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

ultron wrote:Russia,the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia set up Normandy format to meet on October 23 to discuss cease fire and freezing the conflict in Syria.

LAVROV, KERRY AGREE TO ARRANGE MIDDLE EAST QUARTET MINISTERIAL MEETING IN VIENNA ON OCT 23 - RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY

16:03

LAVROV, KERRY DISCUSS SITUATION IN SYRIA, AGREE TO MEET IN VIENNA ON OCT 23, WITH SAUDI ARABIA'S, TURKEY'S PARTICIPATION - RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY

‪#‎Syria24‬

S.M.

With russias actions in Syria, the failed strategy in ukraine to drag russia in a war you can bet whatever amount of money you want that USA will create another front for russia be it in Kazakhstan, Belarus or simply retardation of more eastern european slavic nations that are used as cannon fodder.

Werewolf, you do realize that you are replying to a troll? That is Flagship Haushofer.

I understand when Militarov does it because he is new here but you've been around longer than any of us, you should know better by now...

Hey not everything ultron says is total bullshit, most of it but not everything

4 km left to Kweirs.

Dis Kord

Blogger Reveals How Assad (Probably) Flew to Moscow, Evading US Intel

A military planespotting blogger found the likely route of Bashar Assad's visit to Moscow from Syria, which is surrounded by US allies on all sides.

Assad's visit to Moscow was conducted in secrecy and only officially announced after the Syrian president returned to Damascus. The visit was Assad's first trip abroad since Syria's armed conflict began in 2011.

The flight was conducted in complete secrecy, as security concerns regarding the transportation of a head of state could have been intercepted at a low altitude in Damascus, where terrorist groups including ISIL maintain a presence. Over Iraq, Assad's plane could have been in danger of interception by planes of the US-led coalition, and tracking of the plane could have revealed that he was no longer in the country.

The blogger found that one plane, Rossiya Airlines' government plane Il-62M with registration RA-86539 likely took Assad from Latakia's Hmeymim air base (which doubles as Basel Al Assad International Airport) to Moscow. The plane was first spotted leaving Moscow's Chkalovsky airfield before turning off its transponder on October 20. The plane was then briefly spotted the next morning over the Caspian Sea slightly north of Iran, with no callsign, and then Moscow-bound over Russia.

Assad likely returned to Syria on another government Il-62M, with registration number 86559, which flew with its transponder turned on for the duration of the entire trip on Tuesday evening, but no callsign. The plane then returned to Russia with official callsign RFF7094.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151021/1028885698/russia-assad-secret-flight-revealed.html#ixzz3pEpvpiy0

PapaDragon wrote:
Latakia

Brilliant, a mobile PX Arab style. Some serious entrepreneurs out there. We got one of those on our industrial estate.

magnumcromagnon wrote:Dis Kord

About time ....I was waiting for it to make an appearance


----

Ru-AF carried out 46 sorties hitting 83 targets in the past 24 hrs

Sounds like this strike on a meeting of commanders was the pick of the bunch

#FOOTAGE Precision strike on meeting point of illegal armed groups command (#Idlib province)
https://twitter.com/mod_russia/status/656830141155450880


#SYRIA Last night, after detection of 9 SUVs with machine guns, the whole object with its contents was destroyed with #KAB500 smart air bomb
https://twitter.com/mod_russia/status/656828148466720768


On Oct.19, radiorecon means intercepted data concerning meeting of commanders of illegal armed groups operating near #Sarmin (#Idlib)
https://twitter.com/mod_russia/status/656828034457145344


The meeting place, which was the underground floor of an abandoned building, was put under surveillance of #UAV's
https://twitter.com/mod_russia/status/656828098114101249

Is it Dushka ?

wouldn't russian airforce be better served by SU-17M4 or MiG-27K instead of the SU-25?

For remember, those 2 attack aircrafts were stupidly scraped because "single engine should not remain in service" bullshit.... Both planes have FAR better flying characteristics, are more sophisticated, and can deliver same playload, plus the MiG has a gun like A-10. Those 2 (imagine if they were upgraded as well!) would also be far more safe from light AAA and MANPADS...

What do you think?

of course this question is only for those who know the topic and the aircrafts in question.

Maybe Russia should take out of depots a good 30 of them and just send them there... would be cheap.


Edit: for one thing, russia should replenish syrian AF with a good number of those. Syrian AF could use 20 MiG-27K and 30 SU-17M4. They would obtain them almost for free.

cracker wrote:wouldn't russian airforce be better served by SU-17M4 or MiG-27K instead of the SU-25?

For remember, those 2 attack aircrafts were stupidly scraped because "single engine should not remain in service" bullshit.... Both planes have FAR better flying characteristics, are more sophisticated, and can deliver same playload, plus the MiG has a gun like A-10. Those 2 (imagine if they were upgraded as well!) would also be far more safe from light AAA and MANPADS...

What do you think?

of course this question is only for those who know the topic and the aircrafts in question.

Maybe Russia should take out of depots a good 30 of them and just send them there... would be cheap.

the SU-25 is an dedicated ground attack fighter. its the Russian counterpart to the A-10 Warthog. the SU-25 may not get the speeds and altitude of an fighter but it was never designed to do that, its there to smash ground target's with its twin-30 MM guns and payload. the SU-25 got decent armour for an CAS fighter and can make turns in an pretty small area and align itself on targets in urban area's easier than the one's you mentioned.

you can imagine when ISIS does an assault and an SU-25 manages to align itself with the very road they are walking on and fires an salvo of its twin 30 MM cannon they are hamburger.

I think the fixed wing air asset's currently deployed by Russia is an good combination. they got the SU-35 for air patrol, SU-34 for advanced bombing tasks. SU-24 is an adequate aircraft as well to just carpet-bomb the shit out of ISIS in an cost-effective way. and the SU-25 is an heavy ground hitter that has a lot of potential to support ground forces.  

i am of opinion this is a battlefield effective and cost-effective deployment of aircraft by Russia. i read somewhere Russia spends about a dozen of Million dollars per day on their air campaign in total. thats a very different number what im used to hear when NATO does its bombings in Afghanistan.

just sending an NATO fighter in the air with full payload already ranges almost in the 1 Million dollar range. there is a reason NATO is bankrupt nowadays after 10 years of "regime change" and resorted to throwing practice concrete bombs in Libya's campaign. too damn expensive wars and equipment. and as a sidenote half the crap does not even work as advertised.

So i'd say Russia is not doing bad at all .

^^ It's not even $10 mln... it's $4 mln per day, 2x cheaper. Of course the cost will raise with increasing intensity of airstrikes (now it's 30-45 per day)

But how much airstrikes did the coalition conduct against ISIS? On average? 7 per day?

max steel wrote:Is it Dushka ?

No

cracker wrote:wouldn't russian airforce be better served by SU-17M4 or MiG-27K instead of the SU-25?

For remember, those 2 attack aircrafts were stupidly scraped because "single engine should not remain in service" bullshit.... Both planes have FAR better flying characteristics, are more sophisticated, and can deliver same playload, plus the MiG has a gun like A-10. Those 2 (imagine if they were upgraded as well!) would also be far more safe from light AAA and MANPADS...

What do you think?

of course this question is only for those who know the topic and the aircrafts in question.

Maybe Russia should take out of depots a good 30 of them and just send them there... would be cheap.


Edit: for one thing, russia should replenish syrian AF with a good number of those. Syrian AF could use 20 MiG-27K and 30 SU-17M4. They would obtain them almost for free.

Its big question if any SU17s survived to this day in Russian mothballed inventory. And MiG27s were discarted as platfom for modernisation even during Second War in Chechenya to my knowledge due to bad condition of airframes coz some high ranking officers wanted it back temorally back to service, even tho they were retired just couple years before. I doubt MiGs were in bad condition due to their flying hours, but storage conditions after they were retired. Idk, maybe not all were stored in so bad conditions and could be retrieved to serve in Syrian Air Force but i would not keep my hopes very high.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:^^ It's not even $10 mln... it's $4 mln per day, 2x cheaper. Of course the cost will raise with increasing intensity of airstrikes (now it's 30-45 per day)

But how much airstrikes did the coalition conduct against ISIS? On average? 7 per day?

at best.... its ridiculous. in my tour in Afghanistan when "we" would push the panic button we had at least 4 loaded fighter's overhead under 20 minutes and at times they did not even wait for our FAC'ers to designate targets. they just go after our tracer's and blew up the structures we where shooting at. some pilots said at KAF they had days they barely had any sleep as they had to refuel,reload and head out back again as troops where under heavy fire or large scale operations where underway. Or Even dutch forces under siege in Chora. Afghanistan in 2007, Dutch F-16's four of them kept up bombing for 24 hours straight. they managed to reload at KAF 6 times in that time. after that they slept for three hours and where back at their Planes in case "we" needed them again.  

....and they cant do the same for the Iraqi Millitary?. . right..... its downright lack of "will" and i think its clear to all its just hypocrisy by NATO Command that intends to overthrow Assad by letting ISIS do the ground work.  

NATO's pilots and ground-crews are more than capable to sustain an extensive bombing operation against ISIS. but its the U.S and its allies that wants to keep their pet ISIS alive.

Airbornewolf wrote:

cracker wrote:wouldn't russian airforce be better served by SU-17M4 or MiG-27K instead of the SU-25?

For remember, those 2 attack aircrafts were stupidly scraped because "single engine should not remain in service" bullshit.... Both planes have FAR better flying characteristics, are more sophisticated, and can deliver same playload, plus the MiG has a gun like A-10. Those 2 (imagine if they were upgraded as well!) would also be far more safe from light AAA and MANPADS...

What do you think?

of course this question is only for those who know the topic and the aircrafts in question.

Maybe Russia should take out of depots a good 30 of them and just send them there... would be cheap.

the SU-25 is an dedicated ground attack fighter. its the Russian counterpart to the A-10 Warthog. the SU-25 may not get the speeds and altitude of an fighter but it was never designed to do that, its there to smash ground target's with its twin-30 MM guns and payload. the SU-25 got decent armour for an CAS fighter and can make turns in an pretty small area and align itself on targets in urban area's easier than the one's you mentioned.

you can imagine when ISIS does an assault and an SU-25 manages to align itself with the very road they are walking on and fires an salvo of its twin 30 MM cannon they are hamburger.

I think the fixed wing air asset's currently deployed by Russia is an good combination. they got the SU-35 for air patrol, SU-34 for advanced bombing tasks. SU-24 is an adequate aircraft as well to just carpet-bomb the shit out of ISIS in an cost-effective way. and the SU-25 is an heavy ground hitter that has a lot of potential to support ground forces.  

i am of opinion this is a battlefield effective and cost-effective deployment of aircraft by Russia. i read somewhere Russia spends about a dozen of Million dollars per day on their air campaign in total. thats a very different number what im used to hear when NATO does its bombings in Afghanistan.

just sending an NATO fighter in the air with full payload already ranges almost in the 1 Million dollar range. there is a reason NATO is bankrupt nowadays after 10 years of "regime change" and resorted to throwing practice concrete bombs in Libya's campaign. too damn expensive wars and equipment. and as a sidenote half the crap does not even work as advertised.

So i'd say Russia is not doing bad at all .

Actually it's the Su-30SM that's on air patrol, not the Su-35.

ok thanks for answers.

I just feel that there is a gap between "overkill" (expensive to fly) SU-24 and the "fixed-wing HIND" SU-25, and that using SU-17 or Mig-27 instead for most missions would be cheaper.

I hope syrian air force will be rebuilt and even improved.

what is the current status? What planes (for cheap) should syrian AF receive from russia? I feel that SU-17 and MiG-27 (which they have already in forms of SU-22 and Mig-23 strike variant) should be given in mass.

It's true that SYAF got 6 mig-31? i feel it's bullshit, also, what could they do with it?? this type of interceptor has no use in such a small country, and it's along way before syrian tactics and pilots can possibly use the mig-31 to its real potential


Poland keeps a big number of SU-22M4 in service, it must be a decent enough plane. I mean, it's a great plane, poland seems satisfied with it (though one wonders what they could possibly do with it against their fantasy of russian invasion)


So we are at what, about 800 total air sorties for the russians so far? And not a single malfunction, loss, or accident? pretty decent! Only with some 30 aircrafts!

cracker wrote:ok thanks for answers.

I just feel that there is a gap between "overkill" (expensive to fly) SU-24 and the "fixed-wing HIND" SU-25, and that using SU-17 or Mig-27 instead for most missions would be cheaper.

I hope syrian air force will be rebuilt and even improved.

what is the current status? What planes (for cheap) should syrian AF receive from russia? I feel that SU-17 and MiG-27 (which they have already in forms of SU-22 and Mig-23 strike variant) should be given in mass.

It's true that SYAF got 6 mig-31? i feel it's bullshit, also, what could they do with it?? this type of interceptor has no use in such a small country, and it's along way before syrian tactics and pilots can possibly use the mig-31 to its real potential


Poland keeps a big number of SU-22M4 in service, it must be a decent enough plane. I mean, it's a great plane, poland seems satisfied with it (though one wonders what they could possibly do with it against their fantasy of russian invasion)

No, they do not operate MiG31s even tho they did try to obtain 8 newly built MiG31E few years ago, that contract was frozen/scrapped.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Actually it's the Su-30SM that's on air patrol, not the Su-35.

good correction, thanx man. i forgot for a moment the small "wings" on the front of the main wings and its other characteristic features.